Our next DA needs to know that he or she is not part of a dynasty, is only temporary, is human and fallible, and answers ultimately to the families of the accused, who greatly outnumber the families of the victims.The reply was particularly telling - one of those moments where first order assumptions spring forth that the (anonymous) correspondent has probably never seriously considered or even spoken out loud:
I’ve felt compassion for defendants from DWI offenders to murderers. But their families? . . . . I don’t think I owe anything to a defendant’s family.Amazing. And we wonder why locking folks up doesn't reduce crime. Children of incarcerated parents are 6-8 times more likely than their peers to wind up in prison themselves. That's not all because of bad parenting - particularly when the "bad parent" is locked up. It's much more about depression, anger, resentment, confusion, despair, loneliness and an array of other emotional dynamics that face youth with incarcerated fathers and/or mothers.
But who cares? That's not a prosecutor's problem, right? He'll lock them up later, I guess. Do you think this ADA feels the same indifference toward victims' families? If so, it would at least be intellectually honest and consistent, perhaps even justified. If not, though, the view is hypocritical.
The state's biggest victims' rights group is called "Justice for All," not "Justice for Some," and prosecutors are charged to "seek justice," not convictions. I'm sure Mark's correspondent believes he is living up to that code, but to judge by the attitudes emerging from his emails, I don't.